<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body> One suggestion that I haven't seen mentioned yet is to check the hammer line.  Sometimes moving the hammer closer to the player (in effect, shortening the shank length) produces dramatic results.  It seems that having hammers hit the strings at just the right strike point is more important in Steinways in the "killer octave" region (not so much in the other parts of the piano).  It's easy to test because you can simply slide the action out 1/16" or so and see what happens.  If the buzz goes away, move the hammer line. I also agree with Charles Ball on checking with Steinway before doing anything drastic or otherwise.  They have to be dealing with the same problem on other instruments around the country. Richard West, University of Nebraska Lance Lafargue wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid00f401c3970c$a9ef9b80$69de7044@NEWDELL20"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; "> <meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"> <meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"> <link rel="File-List" href="cid:filelist.xml@01C396E2.BAC6C570"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName">  <style>  </style>  </o:SmartTagType> <div class="Section1"> So I guess my narrowed question is, given all of these excellent posts, is:  With a new B, should I increase the angle and slightly narrow the bar on the speaking length side, given everything else I have tried?  Is there some consensus, given the problems with the design?  And how do I determine if I have a “soft” V-bar?  Voicing did nothing permanent but continue to weaken the piano.  I plan to call Steinway first before I do anything further.  This owner of a new B is currently, officially, depressed  ;  ) <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I may first experiment with yarn in the duplex and PVCE glue on that segment, before shaping the bar.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <st1:PersonName>Lance Lafargue</st1:PersonName>, RPT<o:p></o:p> LAFARGUE PIANOS<o:p></o:p> New Orleans Chapter, PTG<o:p></o:p> 985.72P.IANO<o:p></o:p> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lancelafargue@bellsouth.net">lancelafargue@bellsouth.net</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org">caut-bounces@ptg.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org">mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org</a>] On Behalf Of Horace Greeley Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 11:02 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: Capo Buzz <o:p> </o:p> Ron, At 09:47 PM 10/18/2003 +1100, you wrote:  <o:p></o:p> At 7:22 PM -0400 18/10/03, Ed Sutton wrote:  <o:p></o:p>   . . . Within the constraints of the S & S design, there are 3 causes of buzz: poorly shaped capo, capo bruised by rough stringing, capo too soft due to failure to case harden in casting.<o:p></o:p> Plus the fallacious practice of attempting to set the font duplex length to a harmonic of the speaking length.<o:p></o:p> I totally agree with your assessment; and think that this practice has to do with a basic misunderstanding of what the front duplex is supposed to do.  The patent drawings help support this assumption.  I do not remember the patent descriptions sufficiently well to know if they confirm or refute what might be construed from the pictures as being a reinforcing system.  This is further complicated, I think, by the presence of the movable cast front duplexes still seen on so many older S&S pianos. I'm sure that there are others on the list who are much more current with this stuff than myself...maybe they'll speak up. Best. Horace P.S. - Almost forgot, I've heard some very good compliments about an instrument of yours that a friend of mine heard in Syndey...Opera House, maybe?  Good Show!!! hg  <o:p></o:p> </div> </blockquote> </body> </html>